Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Human–Computer Interfaces in a Cross-Cultural Setting
Increasing globalization has created tremendous opportunities and challenges for organizations and society. Organizations attempt to draw on people’s varied experience, skills, and creativity, regardless of their location; consequently, a broad range of information technologies to better support the collaboration of diverse, and increasingly distributed, sets of participants are ever more utilized. However, research on cross-cultural computer-mediated collaboration has thus far remained sparse. To this end, this research-in-progress paper reports on a study that will examine the effectiveness of modifications of a group collaboration environment’s human–computer interface on group performance, taking into consideration the effects of national culture of the group members. We will test different levels of feedback as a mechanism to increase performance in a controlled laboratory experiment with participants from the USA and East Asia, so as to examine their differential effects across cultures differing widely on the individualism/collectivism dimension. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the findings for the design of the human–computer interface for cross-cultural computer-mediated idea generation and computer-mediated collaboration in general.
The work described in this paper was substantially supported by a research grant from City University of Hong Kong (Project No.7008019).
- 1.Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- 3.Bjelland, O. M., and Chapman Wood, R. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1): 32–40.Google Scholar
- 13.Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 14.Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software for the mind. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 15.Jessup, L. M. (1989). The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
- 18.Latane, B., Williams, K. D., and Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6): 823–832.Google Scholar
- 19.Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., and Coombes, J. (2003). Culture and anonymity in GSS meetings. In G. Ditsa (Ed.), Information Management: Support Systems & Multimedia Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.Google Scholar
- 20.McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 21.Michener, H. A., and DeLamater, J. D. (1999). Social psychology (Vol. 4). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
- 23.Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., et al. (1996). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3): 163–207.Google Scholar
- 24.Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
- 36.Zhang, P. (2008). Toward a positive design theory: Principles for designing motivating information and communication technologies. In M. Avital, R. J. Boland, & D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Designing information and organizations with a positive lens, Advances in Appreciative Inquiry. (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam: JAI.Google Scholar